Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39528850›Full record

ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2025

Fecal Immunochemical Test Positivity Thresholds: An International Survey of Population-Based Screening Programs.

Graeme P Young, Sally C Benton, Robert S Bresalier, Han-Mo Chiu, Evelien Dekker, Callum G Fraser, Marieke A M Frasa, Stephen P Halloran, Michael Hoffmeister, Susan Parry and 4 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Geographical Disparities in Faecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation and Positivity Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Graeme P YoungFlinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia. graeme.young@flinders.edu.au.
Sally C BentonNHS Bowel Cancer Screening South of England Hub, Guildford, England, UK.
Robert S BresalierThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Han-Mo ChiuNational Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Evelien DekkerAmsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Callum G FraserUniversity of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK.
Marieke A M FrasaJeroen Bosch Hospital, 'S-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Stephen P HalloranUniversity of Surrey, Guildford, England, UK.
Michael HoffmeisterGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Susan ParryUniversity of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Kevin SelbyUniversity Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Carlo SenoreUniversity hospital Città della salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Harminder SinghUniversity of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Erin L SymondsFlinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT) is now a widely used non-invasive test in population-based organized screening programs for colorectal neoplasia. The positivity thresholds of tests currently in use are based on the fecal hemoglobin concentration (f-Hb), but the rationale for the adopted thresholds are not well documented. To understand current global usage of FIT in screening programs we conducted an international survey of the brands of FIT used, the f-Hb positivity threshold applied and the rationale for the choice.

methodsAll members of the World Endoscopy Organization CRC Screening Committee were invited to complete an eight-element initial electronic survey exploring the key aims. Responses were obtained from 63 individuals, representing 38 specific locations in 28 countries. A follow-up survey on technical issues was offered to the 38 locations, with replies from 17 sites in 13 countries.

resultsIn-use quantitative FIT were provided by four main manufacturers; Minaris Medical (2 countries), Eiken Chemical Company/Polymedco (21), Alfresa Pharma (2) and Sentinel Diagnostics (4). Of the 38 screening sites, 15 used the threshold of 20 µg hemoglobin/g feces, while thresholds ranged between 8.5 and 120 ug/g in the remainder. Seven explanations were given for adopted FIT thresholds; maximizing the sensitivity for colorectal neoplasia (n = 23) was the most common followed by the availability of colonoscopy resources (n = 18). Predictive value, specificity, and cost effectiveness were less frequently reported as the rationale. Nine sites found it necessary to change the threshold that they had initially selected.

conclusionsThis international survey has documented the wide range of FIT positivity thresholds that are in current use. Quantitative FITs enable programs to achieve the desired program outcomes within available resource constraints by adjusting the positivity threshold. This supports the need for enabling positivity threshold adjustment of emerging new screening tests based on novel predictive biomarkers, rather than providing inflexible test endpoints.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFecesHemoglobinsMass ScreeningOccult BloodHumansImmunochemistryHemoglobinsColorectal cancerNon-invasive screening testsPopulation screeningPositivity thresholdQuantitative fecal immunochemical testScreening program outcomes

Identifiers

PMID39528850
PMCPMC12125024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.